THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
M/S BEEJAY ASSOCIATES (C) PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP 103620/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 103620 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
M/S. BEEJAY ASSOCIATES (C) PVT. LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY 1) J.D. NAVALAKHA,
5TH FLOOR, TEJ HOUSE, 5 M.G.ROAD,
PUNE -411 001, MAHARASHTRA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF ENGINEER (AF) BANGALORE
NO.2 DC, AREA, MES ROAD,
YASHWANTPUR-POST, BENGALURU-560 002.
REPRESENTED BY SHRI ANGAD S/O. JAY RAM SINGH
AGE: NOT KNOWN, OCC: SERVICE,
Digitally signed by ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEER (I)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN (AF) SAMBRA, BELAGAVI-591124.
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH …RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI, CGSC)
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.12.12 11:10:47 +0530
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE ORDERS DATED 28/03/2022 ON I.A. NO.1 UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 IN E.P. NO.847/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the petitioner is required to pay deficit stamp duty under Article 11B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and also required to pay 10 times penalty on the deficit stamp duty.
3. It is not in dispute that the document in question is the arbitral award. It is further not in dispute that the arbitral award is not duly stamped. The Trial Court has held that the petitioner is required to pay the deficit stamp duty and also 10 times penalty on the said arbitral award.
4. Learned counsel of the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this case is covered in terms of the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mr. Shakeel Pasha and others v. M/s City Max Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd., W.P.No.8352/2022 C/W W.P.No.12935/2022
5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Paragraph No.24 of the said order has held as under:
“24. The intent of Arbitration Act to provide speedy resolution of the disputes gets completely defeated if judgment debtors are permitted to raise untenable defences in execution proceedings. An arbitral award without any provision for its speedy disposal is an anathema to the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, the Executing Court erred in impounding the arbitral award and the consequent imposition of ten times penalty is also not sustainable. As stated supra, the decree holder while seeking enforcement of an arbitral award has filed execution petition and has voluntarily deposited the stamp duty which is accepted by the Executing Court. Therefore, the question of imposing penalty would not arise and therefore, the order of the Executing Court in imposing penalty is liable to be set aside by this Court. The stamp duty collected by the Executing Court is also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anasuya Devi (supra).”
6. The Co-ordinate Bench has held that the arbitral award cannot be termed as an instrument, which is chargeable with penalty.
7. Under the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is only required to pay the deficit stamp duty of ₹2,62,500/-. The petitioner is not required to pay the penalty as imposed by the Trial Court.
8. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed in part ii. Impugned order dated 28.03.2022 passed in E.P.No.847/2017 on I.A.No.1 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Belagavi is set aside in part.
iii. The petitioner shall pay deficit stamp duty of ₹2,62,500/-.
iv. The order directing payment of penalty is quashed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.